A Pragmatic

Approach to
Assessing
System Change

Hans Posthumus
Rachel Shah
Alexandra Miehlbradt
Adam Kessler
A Pragmatic Approach to Assessing System Change

Contents

1 Introduction 1
2 Develop system strategy and intervention plans 3
3 Use complementary lenses to assess and analyse changes 8
4 Review and revise 11
5 Report transparently 12
6 A pragmatic way forward 12

 A Pragmatic Approach to Assessing System Change

With the support of:

We would like to thank the participants of the Advanced Monitoring and

Results Measurement training workshop who helped us to test and refine
this approach using three real life cases: the maize system by Promoting
Rural Incomes through Support for Markets in Agriculture (PRISMA) in
Indonesia, the livestock system by Market Development Facility (MDF) in
Pakistan and the Vocational Education and Training (VET) system by Skills
for Jobs (S4J) in Albania. Particular thanks go to Vincent Limputra from
PRISMA, Erka Caro From S4J and Farhan Akhtar and Ali Sarwar from
MDF. We also would like to thank Mike Albu, Helen Bradbury, Michael
Fink, Rob Hitchins, Khaled Khan, Jake Lomax, Matt Ripley, Jim Tanburn
and Phitcha Wanitphon for providing valuable feedback and useful input
into the development of this approach. Thanks to Dorothy Myers for
editing and to Francine Thurnher from Swisscontact for layout support.
Finally, we would like to thank the members of the The Donor Committee
for Enterprise Development (DCED) Results Measurement Working
Group, in particular the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation
(SDC), the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT)
and the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs for contributing to the funding
of the advanced workshop and the development of this paper.

The views expressed in this report do not necessarily represent the views
of the agencies involved.

1st May 2020

1
A Pragmatic Approach to Assessing System Change

1 Introduction

Few topics create as much confusion and debate as
system change, and many programs feel stuck when it
comes to assessing it. The private sector development
field has struggled to agree on an approach that
programs can implement and stakeholders can
understand. Consequently, practice varies widely, and
many are frustrated.
However, some mature programs are starting to
assess system change more effectively. Building
on these emerging practices, this paper outlines
a process that programs can use to assess system
changes regularly and practically. First, it explains how
to develop a system change strategy and intervention
plans that lay the groundwork for system change
assessment, including how to set system boundaries
and how to identify the system changes a program
aims to catalyse. It then explains how to assess system
changes using both an intervention lens focused on
changes introduced by specific interventions, and a
helicopter lens that provides a whole system view. By
analysing findings from the helicopter lens and the
intervention lens together, programs can improve their
strategy and report on their contribution to system
change. Figure 1 shows how this process fits into a
typical program cycle.1

Review and Revise

Assess
system
changes with
intervention
lens Analyse
Develop Develop system
Diagnose systems Intervention Implement
systems interventions changes and Report
strategy plans program
Assess contribution
system
changes with
helicopter
lens

Review and Revise

Figure 1. The iterative process

of planning, assessing, analysing
and reporting system change

1
This overview is the first of several papers providing guidance on assessing system change. More detailed technical guidance is forthcoming.
 2
A Pragmatic Approach to Assessing System Change

Why assessing system change is

important
The problems development practitioners are trying
to address occur because of how systems work.
Tackling those problems in a lasting and significant
way requires helping systems to become more
effective, inclusive and resilient. System change is a
change to how the system works and to what happens
as a result.2 Planning for and assessing system
change is therefore a strategic management issue,
critical for everything from developing a strategy and
designing interventions, to adapting strategy, improving
implementation and reporting impact.

How this approach can help

The approach in this paper helps programs to structure
strategies and intervention plans so that they better
guide program management and assessment of
system change. The approach also introduces the
intervention lens and the helicopter lens for assessing
system changes. While the intervention lens is like
an investigator tracking a trail of changes that were
triggered by interventions, the helicopter lens is like
looking at the landscape to take in the whole picture of
what has and has not changed in the system.3 Using
the lenses together gives programs a clearer picture
of system change than either could provide on its own.
By enabling programs to pragmatically identify and
assess system changes regularly, the approach equips
programs to improve their strategies and interventions
more effectively and quickly. This helps programs to
better foster system changes that benefit their target
groups at scale.

Watch a video of workshop participants reflecting on this pragmatic approach.

2
For more discussion on system change see the BEAM Exchange website.
3
The helicopter and intervention lenses resemble the ‘Top down/Bottom up’ framework. See Itad (2012) GEMS Results Measurement Handbook,
GEMS.
3
A Pragmatic Approach to Assessing System Change

2 Develop system strategy and

intervention plans

Strategies guide management decisions and

implementation activities by outlining how a program
Review and Revise
expects to promote system changes. Programs need
one system strategy for each targeted main system and
aligned plans for each of the interventions expected to
influence that main system. System strategies provide
Assess
system
changes with

an overview of the ways the program aims to influence

intervention
lens Analyse
Develop Develop system
Diagnose
systems
systems
strategy
Intervention
plans
Implement
interventions
changes and
program
contribution
Report
the main system and how the resulting changes are,
Assess
system
changes with together, expected to contribute to the program goal.
helicopter
lens
They help programs to develop, manage and revise a
portfolio of interventions. Intervention plans guide the
Review and Revise
implementation of individual interventions by showing
how each intervention is expected to contribute to
specific system changes (see Figure 2).4

The system strategy describes how the support systems (in blue) are expected to influence the main - maize - system (in
green) in order to impact smallholder farmers (in yellow). The blue arrows visualise the linkages among the systems. An
intervention plan describes one intervention, visualised by the dashed orange arrows which, in this case, show working with
seed companies to target two supporting systems – hybrid seeds and related information about Good Agricultural Practices
(GAP).

Impact

Supporting
Functions
Post harvest
handling GAP info
equipment Hybrid seeds
Irrigation Supporting

Maize Functions

Supporting
Functions GAP
information
Post harvest Informal Norms

equipment Rules
Rules
Supporting
Rules
Functions

Supporting
Functions Hybrid seeds

Irrigation
Rules

Figure 2. A system strategy

Rules
and intervention plan using
the example of maize as the
main system

4
The examples in this paper are based on PRISMA’s work in the maize sector in one area of Indonesia. The examples have been adjusted for
learning purposes and do not always accurately reflect the program’s work.
 4
A Pragmatic Approach to Assessing System Change

System boundaries
Systems don’t operate in isolation; any given system is connected to multiple other systems. Programs, therefore,
need to delineate the boundaries of the main system they aim to influence, explicitly stating what’s included and
what’s excluded. Clear system boundaries help a program to develop effective strategies and to assess and
report system changes relative to the bounded systems.

System boundaries are set according to where opportunities and constraints lie relative to the program goal, and
according to what is achievable given the program’s timeframe and resources. This includes clearly defining the
target group and making choices about which geographical area and which interconnected systems – sometimes
called ‘supporting systems’5 – to focus on (see Figure 3).

Impact
Supporting Supporting
Functions Functions

Standards
Other information
Supporting
Functions
crops Supporting
Functions
Supporting
Rules
Functions
Fertilizer Post harvest Finance
GAP info
Rules handling
equipment Hybrid seeds
Irrigation Supporting
Rules
Functions
Maize
Rules

Supporting
Functions
GAP
information
Post harvest Informal Norms

equipment Rules
Rules
Rules
Supporting
Supporting
Supporting Functions Supporting
Supporting Functions
Functions Functions
Functions

Irrigation Hybrid seeds

Other seeds Crop protection
Transport
Rules
Rules
Rules Rules
Rules

Figure 3. Example of delineating system boundaries. In this case, the program has chosen
maize as the main system, excluding other crops, and decided to include four critical supporting
systems while excluding the others.

Boundaries may be redefined over time as programs learn more about what is relevant to the changes they aim
to achieve.6

5
The Springfield Centre (2015) The Operational Guide for the Making Markets Work for the Poor (M4P) Approach, 2nd edition funded by SDC and
DFID.
6
Fowler, Sparkman and Markel (2016) Disrupting System Dynamics: A Framework for Understanding Systemic Changes, LEO.
5
A Pragmatic Approach to Assessing System Change

System strategy
A system strategy summarises the boundaries of the system, describes the starting state and desired state for
expected changes in the system, and explains the plan for how the program intends to catalyse those changes.
It is helpful to develop the system strategy immediately after system diagnosis, before implementation starts.

The system strategy lists expected changes in both the main system, and in targeted supporting systems. It
records data on the starting state and describes the desired state for each of these expected changes. Questions
to guide the articulation of changes include:

• Who is doing what in the system now and who is expected to do what in the future?
• What do they have access to and use now and what are they expected to have access to and use in the
future?
• What are the rules and norms now and what are they expected to be in the future?
• What interactions are happening now? How do actors relate to each other? How are interactions and
relationships expected to be different in the future?
• What is the performance of the main and supporting systems, and what is their desired performance in
the future?

The system strategy also includes a plan that explains how the program intends to influence the system to
achieve the listed changes. It describes how the program plans to catalyse changes within supporting systems
through their portfolio of interventions and how these different intervention-driven changes are expected to
interact and lead to changes in the main system. It also shows how system changes are expected to benefit the
program’s target group.

The system strategy can be summarised using a system results chain (Figure 4) and a table (Figure 5). The
results chain visualises how a portfolio of interventions could contribute to changes in supporting systems, how
changes in supporting systems are expected to change the main system, and how that might affect the target
group. Although results chains are a linear picture of complex system changes, they provide a useful framework
for thinking through a strategy and planning monitoring activities.

Figure 4. System results chain Farmers earn Farmers shift

for the maize example higher income towards commercial
maize farming

Farmers sell Farmers receive

more maize higher prices for maize

Farmers increase Farmers increase

yields quality of maize

Farmers use approp. Farmers use irrigation Farmers apply Farmers store maize
Farmers use Farmers use to benefit from changes
inputs & GAP systems and GAP for good post
hybrid seeds GAP in market demand
for dryland farming maize cultivation harvest practices

Retailers sell hybrid ISPs sell inputs ISPs sell equipment Service providers sell
seeds and give advice and advice and advice post harvest equipment
and advice

Government adjusts its Seed companies Irrigation equipment

Input suppliers develop
subsidy program & develop suppliers develop
distribution network
geographical targeting distribution network distribution network

Public Private Hybrid Seeds Dryland Irrigation Post Harvest

Collaboration & GAP farming Handling
 6
A Pragmatic Approach to Assessing System Change

The table sets out boundaries for the main system and records data for the
starting state and the desired state for key changes anticipated in the main
system and supporting systems. It also shows how interventions are expected
to contribute to changes and explains interactions between supporting
systems in a way that a results chain can’t easily capture.

Boundaries Maize that is, or could be, produced and sold by smallholder farmers on Madura Island.
Indicators Starting Plan 2020-2025 Desired
system state system state
Main system: Maize
Volume of maize sold 395,000 tonnes The program will first focus on increasing 500,000 tonnes
from target area the supply of hybrid seeds and embedded
% of maize sold that 5% information on good agricultural practices (GAP) 15%
is highest quality for small farmers from private and public actors.
grade The resulting increase in yields and interest
in transacting with small farmers is expected
Private companies Unusual, 2 companies to drive changes in other supporting systems Becoming the norm; at
target small farmers and encourage small farmers to become more least 8 companies
as buyers/suppliers commercial. Once farmers start to increase yields,
Farmers’ perceptions Mainly subsistence the program will add a focus on reducing post- Both subsistence and
of maize crop harvest losses. As farmers start shifting to more cash crop
Etc. Etc. commercial production, the program can likely add Etc.
work in dryland farming and irrigation. Etc.
Supporting system 1: Hybrid maize seed
Volume of hybrid 150,000 Kg The program will work to 375,000 Kg
seeds sold on 1) increase private sector investment in the
Madura Island commercial distribution of hybrid seeds to small
Number of farmers 30,000 Farmers (8%) farmers with embedded information on GAP, and 75,000 Farmers (20%)
buying hybrid seeds 2) improve public-private coordination in hybrid
Number of 1 seed distribution. 4
companies selling These two changes are interdependent. The
and advising on program will also encourage a greater flow
hybrid maize seeds of information about hybrid seeds in order to
Farmers’ perceptions Risky, influence informal norms and increase demand. Useful, requires
of hybrid seeds unnecessary Improved access to irrigation and post-harvest right GAP
services will support, but not drive, changes in the
Etc. Etc. Etc.
seed system. Etc.
Supporting system 2, etc.

Figure 5. Partial system strategy table using the maize example

Programs learn more about the system as they develop and manage
interventions and monitor and assess their impacts. System strategies will
become more robust as they are revised over time.
7
A Pragmatic Approach to Assessing System Change

Intervention plans
Intervention plans outline how and when interventions
are expected to lead to specific changes in one or
more supporting systems. They show what is expected
to change, for whom, how changes are linked to
program activities, and how changes are expected to
spread. They also show how changes in the targeted
supporting system(s) lead to changes in the main
system and contribute to impact for the target group.7
Programs usually start interventions by partnering with
system actors to influence their behaviour. To increase
the likelihood of system change, programs carefully
choose partners and design and manage interventions
over time to not only influence partners but also other
system actors. The goal is that system actors adopt
and own new behaviours at scale – relative to the
boundaries of the targeted system – and that other
changes in the system reinforce the new behaviours,
making them more resilient.

Farmers earn
higher income

Farmers sell Farmers receive

more maize higher prices for maize

Farmers increase Farmers increase

yields quality of maize

Other farmers Farmers use Farmers use

copy GAP GAP hybrid seeds

Retailers sell hybrid Other Retailers sell hybrid Other Retailers sell hybrid
seeds and give advice seeds and give advice seeds and give advice

Partner Seed company Seed company expands Other seed companies

develops distribution distribution network to develop distribution networks
network more districts

Activities

Expected First partnership with Expected roll out by Expected crowding

copying one seed company the initial partner seed in by other
company seed companies

Figure 6. A simplified intervention results chain for the maize example

An intervention plan is typically visualised in an intervention results chain (Figure 6), with associated indicators
to assess progress.8 Intervention plans are developed just before or in the initial stages of intervention
implementation and regularly revised based on incoming information.

7
Similar partnerships may be combined under one plan; system change rarely occurs as the result of just one partnership.
8
See Kessler, Sen and Loveridge (2017) Guidance to the DCED Standard for Results Measurement: Articulating the Results Chain, DCED.
 8
A Pragmatic Approach to Assessing System Change

3 Use complementary lenses to

assess and analyse changes

Review and Revise

Programs need to assess system changes using two

complementary lenses: an intervention lens to assess Assess
system
the adoption and spread of changes introduced changes with
intervention
lens
by interventions, and a helicopter lens to assess
Analyse
Develop Develop system
Diagnose Implement
systems Intervention changes and Report
systems interventions
wider changes in the main and supporting systems. strategy plans Assess
system
program
contribution
changes with
Together, these two lenses can help a program build helicopter
lens

a robust understanding of what system changes are

occurring and why. Review and Revise

Intervention lens
The intervention lens follows the spread of a specific
change introduced by an intervention. It tracks new
behaviours from program partners to other system
actors, examining how far the change spreads and
whether it will stick. Questions include:
• To what extent do market actors own the
introduced change? Who does, or doesn’t?
Why?
• What is the scale of the change, relative
to the whole system? Why has, or hasn’t, it
scaled?
• To what extent, and how, is the change
reinforced by other parts of the system?
The intervention lens also examines changes up the
results chain. It assesses to what extent changes in
the targeted supporting system(s) affect the main
system and to what extent those specific changes in
the main system affect the target group.
The starting point for assessing system change
through the intervention lens is the intervention plan.
Most programs have established monitoring and
results measurement (MRM) systems that guide
program staff to monitor changes and assess impact
in accordance with intervention plans.9 Intervention
lens assessments can mostly be combined with these
regular MRM activities.
However, it can be difficult to predict exactly how and
when a system will change, so programs also need to
keep an eye out for possible signs of system change.
This requires an investigative approach, obtaining
information from diverse sources – including, but also
extending beyond, program partners – and recording
information regularly. Any signs of change can be
probed to better understand the nature and extent
of the change, to validate findings with a stronger
evidence base, and to further explore the program’s
contribution to the change.

9
See, for example, the DCED Toolkit for Implementing the DCED Standard, available at www.enterprise-development.org
9
A Pragmatic Approach to Assessing System Change

Helicopter lens
The helicopter lens is focused on big picture changes:
What changes are happening in the main and
supporting systems? What is driving these changes?
How, if at all, do these changes relate to or reinforce
each other? Has the performance of the main system
or targeted supporting systems changed?
The helicopter lens complements the intervention
lens by capturing broader changes. For example,
the helicopter lens assesses changes to the volume
of maize produced by smallholder farmers across
the whole system, whereas the intervention lens
only captures changes to the volume of maize
produced as a result of specific interventions. Often,
system changes are caused by the interaction and
accumulation of multiple interventions and may
not even be targeted by any single intervention. For
example, the helicopter lens might find that maize
farmers are becoming more commercially oriented as
a result of the combined effect of changes in three
different supporting systems. This would not be easily
captured by any one intervention lens assessment. In
addition, the helicopter lens allows programs to assess
changes to systems caused by external factors.
Monitoring these changes informs program strategy
and supports analysis of the program’s contribution to
system changes.
The starting point for assessing system change
with the helicopter lens is the system strategy. The
helicopter lens is used to compare the state at the
point of assessment with the starting and desired
states for the changes described in the strategy and
to look for interactions among changes. The challenge
is to focus on the changes included in the system
strategy, while keeping an eye open for changes in
other supporting systems, and for unexpected effects.
Too narrow a focus may lead to missing crucial
information; too broad a view may be resource-
intensive without adding much relevant information.
A simple assessment plan can help find the right
balance. The system strategy and the guiding
questions (see the box on page 5) will help to define
what changes – expected and unexpected – need
to be assessed. The format in Figure 7 provides
simple questions to help programs translate each
change into specific research questions and to think
creatively about information sources and methods.
After completing this ‘thinking process’ for each
system change to be assessed through the helicopter
lens, programs can combine the actual information
gathering required with other MRM activities to avoid
duplication.

1 What do we aim to assess? Are maize farmers shifting from subsistence to commercial maize farming?
2 What do we need 3 Who has 4 What type of 5 How to collect this 6 When and how
to know? information about information do they information? often to collect this
this? have? information?
How do maize Smallholder farmers Perceptions and Poll farmers at farmers’ End of season
farmers perceive (wide representation opinions markets
maize farming? across system)
Information on volume Interview traders by
Are volumes of maize Traders phone
of maize traded
traded increasing
across the whole Interview district officers
District agricultural
system? at annual events
officers

Figure 7. Partial helicopter lens assessment plan using the maize example
 10
A Pragmatic Approach to Assessing System Change

Analyse, interpret and assess contribution

The helicopter lens enables programs to assess broad system changes, while the intervention lens enables them
to assess the scale, sustainability and impact of the changes introduced by program interventions (see Figure 8).

Impact
Helicopter lens:
What has changed?
How has it changed? Supporting
Functions
Post harvest
GAP info
handling

Why has it changed? equipment

Irrigation
Hybrid seeds

Supporting

Maize Functions

Supporting
Functions GAP
information
Post harvest Informal Norms

equipment Rules
Rules
Supporting
Rules
Functions

Supporting
Functions Hybrid seeds Intervention lens:
Irrigation
Rules What has changed as the result of the intervention(s)?
Rules
How has it changed?
Why has it changed, why not?

Figure 8. The system lens and intervention

lens complement one another

By combining findings from both lenses, a program in Madura are becoming more commercially oriented,
can understand changes in the systems it is targeting due to higher maize yields, more opportunities to sell
and form a credible picture of whether and how it maize and more access to information.
has contributed to changes in the main system. The
findings from several intervention lens assessments Taken together the two lenses give a picture of system
show how program activities lead to changes in changes in both the main system and supporting
targeted supporting systems, which in turn lead systems, and show how program interventions
to changes in the maize system and contribute to contributed to these system changes, and therefore
impact. For example, intervention lens assessments to impact. In the maize example, they indicate that
show that one intervention successfully encouraged the program contributed to the trend of small farmers
private seed companies to invest in distributing hybrid in Madura increasing their sales of maize. The two
seeds in the area and another strengthened extension lenses also show that the program contributed to
officers’ knowledge. An impact assessment indicates two of the key reasons for farmers becoming more
that farmers’ use of the hybrid seeds and increased commercial: higher maize yields and more access to
access to information from both extension officers information. This change in farmers’ norms regarding
and commercial seed retailers contributed to higher maize is likely to drive further increases in maize sales
maize yields. and farmers’ benefits.

Meanwhile, the helicopter lens captures the combined A culture of honest enquiry is required to assess if
effect of multiple changes, including those caused and how program interventions have contributed to
by external factors. For example, findings from the system changes. The purpose is not to rigidly classify
helicopter lens may show that the total volume of maize the significance of the contribution, but to provide a
traded by small farmers in Madura has increased from transparent and evidence-based explanation of what
395,000 tonnes to 450,000 tonnes. The helicopter has changed, why, and the role of the program in
lens assessment also suggests that maize farmers influencing those changes.
11
A Pragmatic Approach to Assessing System Change

4 Review and revise

Review and Revise

Systems are dynamic, so it’s critical that system
strategies and intervention plans are reviewed and
Assess
revised regularly. The system strategy and intervention system
changes with
intervention
plans provide the foundation for assessing system Diagnose
Develop Develop
Implement
lens Analyse
system
Report
changes, and the assessment findings, in turn, provide systems
systems
strategy
Intervention
plans
interventions
Assess
changes and
program
contribution
system
the information needed to revise strategies and plans. changes with
helicopter
lens
This creates an iterative process of learning and
adaptive management.
Review and Revise

Reviewing and revising intervention Reviewing and revising system

plans
Most programs review intervention plans frequently
based on information from their regular monitoring
activities and impact assessments.10 It’s critical to
consider system changes in these regular reviews. The
first task is to review the findings from the intervention
lens assessment, looking at why, how and how many
targeted system actors have changed their behaviour,
their degree of ownership over changes, and their
ability to respond to future changes. The second task is
to revise intervention plans in light of system changes
(or lack thereof), both those promoted by interventions
and those caused by other factors. Revision can mean
adjusting or closing existing interventions or adding
new interventions.
strategies
System strategy reviews happen less frequently than
intervention plan reviews,11 and require a different
mindset. Reviewing the system strategy involves
comparing the current state of the system with the
starting state and desired state and assessing whether
the interventions are working together to foster the
expected changes in the main system and supporting
systems. It’s about connecting the dots and making a
judgement call as to whether the system strategy is
working, given the amount of time that has passed.
Then, the program can use its improved understanding
of the main and supporting systems, and how and why
they are changing, to revise the system strategy.

Frequency depends on the business cycles; most programs review intervention plans 2-4 times per year.
10

Frequency depends on the business cycles; most programs review system strategies once or twice a year.
11

A Pragmatic Approach to Assessing System Change
5 Report transparently
Most stakeholders want programs to report three
things about system change: 1) what changes have
happened, 2) to what extent and how the program
contributed to system changes, and 3) how the
program is responding to a changing context. By using
findings from both intervention lens and helicopter
lens assessments, programs can report credibly on all
three of these.
To report on what changes have happened, programs
can use the findings from both lenses to explain
changes in supporting systems and the main
system in relation to system boundaries. A strong
description covers both the results of interventions
and how changes to the main system and relevant
supporting systems interact and affect systems’
performance. Systems are messy, so reporting will
necessarily be a simplification. However, a program
can report rigorously by drawing on both lenses,
6 A pragmatic way forward
The approach laid out in this paper builds on the
experience of programs and existing good practices
recommended by guidance on market systems
development and the DCED Standard for Results
Measurement.13 It can be applied across a range of
sectors by programs using a variety of system change
frameworks.
The cycle of planning, implementing, assessing,
analysing and reporting is already embedded in
programs. The approach in this paper helps to structure
each step to better guide the achievement and
assessment of system change. It shows how to design
system strategies and intervention plans so that they
break down system change into a series of concrete
and measurable changes. It then shows how to assess
system changes as they happen. Many programs are
already using an intervention lens to track the spread
of targeted behaviour changes through a system. This
approach adds the helicopter lens to capture also the
12
Systems are too complex and multi-faceted for programs to plausibly claim that changes are solely attributable to them.
13
More information on the DCED Standard is available at www.enterprise-development.org/measuring-results-the-dced-standard/
12
using a mix of qualitative and quantitative indicators,
and differentiating between empirical evidence and
interpretation.
To report on contribution, a program can use findings
from the intervention lens to show how changes
to supporting systems link to program activities,
and findings from the helicopter lens to explain
transparently how changes to targeted supporting
systems and other, external factors caused changes
to the main system. This enables the program to
describe clearly its contribution using evidence from
both lenses.12
Finally, to highlight adaptive management, a program
can explain how it is using findings from both lenses
to review and revise its system strategy and portfolio
of interventions, in light of both expected and
unexpected changes.
broader changes in the targeted systems. Both the
intervention lens and the helicopter lens use familiar
information gathering processes and methods that can
be combined with existing MRM activities. Finally, the
approach provides guidance on how to enhance the
analysis of findings so that they more effectively inform
revisions to the strategy and plans and can be clearly
reported to program stakeholders.
Programs that want to use this approach don’t need
to start from scratch. They can incrementally build the
new elements into their existing management cycle.
Experience with the approach to date suggests that the
payoffs in greater clarity, more purposeful planning and
a richer understanding of system change are worth the
manageable, additional effort. Ultimately, this approach
will help programs to change systems more effectively
so that they are more efficient, inclusive and resilient,
resulting in wider and deeper benefits for their target
groups.
Hans Posthumus Consultancy
www.hposthumus.nl
hans@hposthumus.nl

The Springfield Centre for Businses

in Development Ltd.
www.springfieldcentre.com
global@springfieldcentre.com

Miehlbradt Consulting Ltd.

www.miehlbradt.com
aly@miehlbradt.com

Donor Committee for Enterprise Development

www.enterprise-development.org
admin@enterprise-development.org